The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Except that a republic and democracy(representative in our case) are not mutually exclusive so if there is a "break down" in understanding it's elsewhere. We happen to be both.
Click to expand...
In this you are correct. "Republic" comes from the Latin "Res Publica" meaning "public thing." It means the people, not the King, own the country.

How can the people govern their country other than through some form of democracy.

True, but how does that argument work against gun control so long as the laws are applied to all?
Click to expand...
And there you are wrong. The flaw in your argument is the unspoken assumption that somehow the right to bear arms is not al fundamental right at all, but some sort of a privilige which the government can grant or withhold at will.
 
How can the people govern their country other than through some form of democracy.
Click to expand...

That statement(or is it a question?) is to my point. However, a republic does not have to be a democracy if that is what you are trying to say.

Quote:
True, but how does that argument work against gun control so long as the laws are applied to all?

And there you are wrong. The flaw in your argument is the unspoken assumption that somehow the right to bear arms is not al fundamental right at all, but some sort of a privilige which the government can grant or withhold at will.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Huh? How can i be wrong if i only asked a question? Regardless, whether or not guns are a fundamental right is a completley different topic than equal application of laws to everybody. That's awfully diversionary.
 
How can i be wrong if i only asked a question? Regardless, whether or not guns are a fundamental right is a completley different topic than equal application of laws to everybody. That's awfully diversionary.
Click to expand...
It is diversionary, but I'm not the one making the diversion.

Consider this,
Regardless, whether or not the right not to be raped is a fundamental right, how does that argument work against laws permitting rape so long as the laws are applied to all?
Click to expand...

I have simply restated your argument, but applyed it in a different realm. Clearly, a law permitting rape would be unConstitutional and blatently wrong, even if it applied evenly to all victims.

Similarly, a law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and blatently wrong, regardless of how evenly it is applied.
 
JustinJ said:
Except that a republic and democracy(representative in our case) are not mutually exclusive so if there is a "break down" in understanding it's elsewhere. We happen to be both.



True, but how does that argument work against gun control so long as the laws are applied to all?
Click to expand...
The Constitution and our government were designed (originally) to do one thing. To protect the rights of the individual.

Granted, that concept has changed drastically, but thats it. Applying a law/provision/statute uniformly against everyone doesn't make it legal or right.

Example: Your neighbors (the majority) have no right to collectively tear down your house (the minority) just because they made an ordinance that you failed to heed.

Whether you voted for or against that ordinance, or you declined to vote at all, or the ordinance would apply to all brown houses equally, makes no difference.

The point of our government is to stop such transgressions, rather than to endorse them as it does today...
 
It is diversionary, but I'm not the one making the diversion.
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick, but by basic rules of grammar "It" in the above statement refers to yoru comments so who else could be making the diversion?

I have simply restated your argument, but applyed it in a different realm. Clearly, a law permitting rape would be unConstitutional and blatently wrong, even if it applied evenly to all victims.

Similarly, a law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and blatently wrong, regardless of how evenly it is applied.
Click to expand...

First off, i was not saying that the universal application of a law makes it right. I was pointing out that equal application of laws is simply not a valid argument against gun control. Second , your example is ridiculous given such a law would never represent the will of the majorty to begin with.

The Constitution and our government were designed (originally) to do one thing. To protect the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

No, the constitution was constructed in a way to balance individual liberty with common interests. It was also designed to allow for change and adaption over time as need be. In addition, there was not one single author of the constitution with just one single motive. There were numerous men who negotiated and compromised until an agreeable draft was finally reached. The role of the federal government has been debated and changing since day one. The Jefferson vs Hamilton feud is a prime example.

It should also be remembered that the bill or rights was originally intended to only limit the actions of the federal government, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and as such state and local governments had the right to regulate or ban guns at their discretion. Had the ability to change the constitution not been included there would be no 14th amendment and the second amendment would not apply to state and local governments.
 
Last edited:
First off, i was not saying that the universal application of a law makes it right. I was pointing out that equal application of laws is simply not a valid argument against gun control. Second , your example is ridiculous given such a law would never represent the will of the majorty to begin with.
Click to expand...
Which does not invalidate the proposition that even application of an unconstitutional law makes in no less unconstitutional.
 
JustinJ said:
Not to nitpick, but by basic rules of grammar "It" in the above statement refers to yoru comments so who else could be making the diversion?



First off, i was not saying that the universal application of a law makes it right. I was pointing out that equal application of laws is simply not a valid argument against gun control. Second , your example is ridiculous given such a law would never represent the will of the majorty to begin with.



No, the constitution was constructed in a way to balance individual liberty with common interests. It was also designed to allow for change and adaption over time as need be. In addition, there was not one single author of the constitution with just one single motive. There were numerous men who negotiated and compromised until an agreeable draft was finally reached. The role of the federal government has been debated and changing since day one. The Jefferson vs Hamilton feud is a prime example.

It should also be remembered that the bill or rights was originally intended to only limit the actions of the federal government, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and as such state and local governments had the right to regulate or ban guns at their discretion. Had the ability to change the constitution not been included there would be no 14th amendment and the second amendment would not apply to state and local governments.
Click to expand...
Further debate from me on this would derail the thread from the original topic. Suffice it to say I'll concede to your varied motives (Jefferson / Hamiltonian) argument only.
 
No, the constitution was constructed in a way to balance individual liberty with common interests. It was also designed to allow for change and adaption over time as need be.
Click to expand...
The means of change and adaptation over time is spelled out in Article V:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Click to expand...
That does not mean, "Hey, the powers that be can put whatever interpretation they want on the plain words of the Constitution -- no need to go through any formal amendment process."
 
That does not mean, "Hey, the powers that be can put whatever interpretation they want on the plain words of the Constitution -- no need to go through any formal amendment process."
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true. However, new challenges, new laws and new amendments can alter the way in which the existing ones are interpreted and applied. In reality though there are times in which "unofficial" new interpretations are probably the best option. For example, one could very well argue that any and all weapons are protected by the 2nd. When the bill of rights were written it was not impractical to have citizens own any available weapon just as it was arguably practical to not have a standing army. However, nobody in their right mind believes nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons should be sold at at the local gun store just as nobdoy thinks we shouldn't have a standing army in modern times. I would much rather society play ignorant to the fact that restricting these weapons is possibly a 2nd amendment violation than take the risk of having it altered through the amendment process. The latter could easily result in it being greatly shrunk or even repealed.
 
In reality though there are times in which "unofficial" new interpretations are probably the best option. For example, one could very well argue that any and all weapons are protected by the 2nd. When the bill of rights were written it was not impractical to have citizens own any available weapon just as it was arguably practical to not have a standing army. However, nobody in their right mind believes nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons should be sold at at the local gun store just as nobdoy thinks we shouldn't have a standing army in modern times. I would much rather society play ignorant to the fact that restricting these weapons is possibly a 2nd amendment violation than take the risk of having it altered through the amendment process. The latter could easily result in it being greatly shrunk or even repealed.
Click to expand...
First of all, that puts us back to the old, "The Constitution means whatever the people in power say it means" -- which means there is really no Constitution at all.

Secondly, the old "Nuclear weapons at the local gun store" argument is so tired and discredited that you might as well bury it.
 
JustinJ said:
Yes, that's true. However, new challenges, new laws and new amendments can alter the way in which the existing ones are interpreted and applied. In reality though there are times in which "unofficial" new interpretations are probably the best option. For example, one could very well argue that any and all weapons are protected by the 2nd. When the bill of rights were written it was not impractical to have citizens own any available weapon just as it was arguably practical to not have a standing army. However, nobody in their right mind believes nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons should be sold at at the local gun store just as nobdoy thinks we shouldn't have a standing army in modern times. I would much rather society play ignorant to the fact that restricting these weapons is possibly a 2nd amendment violation than take the risk of having it altered through the amendment process. The latter could easily result in it being greatly shrunk or even repealed.
Click to expand...
Your whole argument is based facts not in evidence. A faulty premise, that the 2A can be written out of the constitution by the powers that be.

When the contrary is in evidence. "That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... ...[The Government derives] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

Meaning that these rights are given by the Creator not by the whim of government or the majority. The majority or the government may want people to consent and relinquish them, but they cannot take away something they never had to power to give in the first place.

This is codified by both the 9th the 10th amendments...

9) The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(The people can own and sell whatever they want at gun shows. Nuclear or otherwise...)

10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(The States can't take these rights away either. The People retain ultimate authority. We just choose to be ruled...)


Edited to add:

Being that they are given by the Creator and therefore inalienable, though they may be written out of the document by the major or governing class, they'll never be relinquish or erased from the hearts and minds of men. Men with freed minds will inevitably do what's right. Your argument means that the founders of this country (the minority) were wrong to declare independence, as the king outlawed their use of firearms, and the majority wanted not to upset the status quo (fear of retribution)...
 
Last edited:
Your whole argument is based facts not in evidence. A faulty premise, that the 2A can be written out of the constitution by the powers that be.
Click to expand...

You may want to take it up with the founders given they did in fact include a means to amend any part of the constitution.

When the contrary is in evidence. "That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... ...[The Government derives] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

Meaning that these rights are given by the Creator not by the whim of government or the majority. The majority or the government may want people to consent and relinquish them, but they cannot take away something they never had to power to give in the first place.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that you are convoluting the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution? The inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence do not include guns.

This is codified by both the 9th the 10th amendments...
Click to expand...

Your interpretations of the 9th and 10th are largely your own and well beyond the scope of this thread. If you truly believe it practical to allow the sell of nuclear, biological, chemical or other WMD's at gun stores then i'm sorry but you lack a grasp of the realities of the world we live in.


Being that they are given by the Creator and therefore inalienable, though they may be written out of the document by the major or governing class, they'll never be relinquish or erased from the hearts and minds of men. Men with freed minds will inevitably do what's right. Your argument means that the founders of this country (the minority) were wrong to declare independence, as the king outlawed their use of firearms, and the majority wanted not to upset the status quo (fear of retribution)...
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that the founders were not acting on behalf of the majority of the colonists? As i recall the signers were elected representatives.


Secondly, the old "Nuclear weapons at the local gun store" argument is so tired and discredited that you might as well bury it.
Click to expand...

You just saying so doesn't make it so. By the way, i mentioned more than just nuclear weapons.
Kings, emperors and tyrants have long claimed divine "right" to rule. I'm not getting into a debate about the will of the "creator".
 
Last edited:
You may want to take it up with the founders given they did in fact include a means to amend any part of the constitution.
Click to expand...
Knock, knock! Amending the Constitution does not include re-interpreting it to say black is white and up is down.
 
Knock, knock! Amending the Constitution does not include re-interpreting it to say black is white and up is down.
Click to expand...

That has absouletly nothing to do with the comment of mine that you quoted. If you read what i was replying to this is quite obvious.
 
You just saying so doesn't make it so. By the way, i mentioned more than just nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
And your saying it isn't so doesn't make it true. In point of fact, it is possible to produce the most deadly biological agents in your kitchen. And you may recall a strange group in Tokyo manufactured nerve gas and released it into the subway system.

You can't outlaw kitchens, now can you?:rolleyes:
 
And your saying it isn't so doesn't make it true. In point of fact, it is possible to produce the most deadly biological agents in your kitchen. And you may recall a strange group in Tokyo manufactured nerve gas and released it into the subway system.

You can't outlaw kitchens, now can you?
Click to expand...

I don't just say so, i make arguments for my positions.

Making any real quantities of deliverable forms of chemical and bio weaons(without killing one's self) is actually far more difficult than you probably think, hugely in part to very strict regulation of materials and equipment. The Tokyo attack would have been far worse had they used a more efficient dispersion method.

Do you honestly believe the nuts intent on mass murder who go on shooting rampages would not prefer to kill hundreds or thousands with more effective weapons if the means were available? And you seriously think such weapons should be sold on the open market at gun stores or whatever? I can't even begin to say how insane that is.

If, however, a case was heard in which the supreme court ruled that something like weaponized Anthrax was protected under the second amendment how long do you think it would take for a constitutional amendment to happen? The only question is how much, if any, of it would remain after.
 
I don't just say so, i make arguments for my positions.
Click to expand...
And the fallacies of your arguments lead to nonsensical conclusions like we should outlaw kitchens.

Making any real quantities of deliverable forms of chemical and bio weaons(without killing one's self) is actually far more difficult than you probably think, hugely in part to very strict regulation of materials and equipment. The Tokyo attack would have been far worse had they used a more efficient dispersion method.
Click to expand...
Being a graduate of the CBR Officer's course, and having worked after retiring from the military on many projects, including working for the Army Chemical Center, I suspect I know a lot more about this than you do.

You can make the most deadly biological agent in your kitchen, and you can make nerve gas with readily obtainable agents. And there are plenty of efficient ways to employ it.
 
And the fallacies of your arguments lead to nonsensical conclusions like we should outlaw kitchens.
Click to expand...

No, thinking my arguments lead to that conclusion is what is nonsensical.

Being a graduate of the CBR Officer's course, and having worked after retiring from the military on many projects, including working for the Army Chemical Center, I suspect I know a lot more about this than you do.
Click to expand...

If you think it just takes common kitchen items to whip up a sufficient quantity of chemical weapons in an effecitve and deliverable form to perform mass destruction then it would appear not.

You can make the most deadly biological agent in your kitchen, and you can make nerve gas with readily obtainable agents. And there are plenty of efficient ways to employ it.
Click to expand...

This is just internet urban legendry. Or maybe you know more then the scientists, medical experts, FBI agents, etc who contributed to the following report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ns00050t.pdf

Do you have any idea how many people, from terrorists to just plain old nuts, would be making and employing such weapons if all one needed were a kitchen? It's ridiculous.
 
No, thinking my arguments lead to that conclusion is what is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Can you repost that in English?
If you think it just takes common kitchen items to whip up a sufficient quantity of chemical weapons in an effecitve and deliverable form to perform mass destruction then it would appear not.
Click to expand...
Since it has actually been done, it would appear I am correct.

What is the basis of your expertise in this field?
Do you have any idea how many people, from terrorists to just plain old nuts, would be making and employing such weapons if all one needed were a kitchen?
Click to expand...
Despite your protests -- given this is a subject about which you know nothing -- it can be and has been done.
 
Since it has actually been done, it would appear I am correct.
Click to expand...

Because a trained chemist made some Sarin gas in Tokyo almost 20 years ago(which was poorly delivered) you believe it makes you correct in saying that WMD's can be readily made in deliverable form with kitchen equipment? Um, no, hardly. That is the reason you are arguing that it is pointless to make WMD's illegal? Seriously?

What is the basis of your expertise in this field?
Click to expand...

I've already cited an official report, drafted with the input of real experts in the field, that completely contradicts your position. Aside from another attempt by you at diversion, what does my background have to do with anything? Since you are claiming to have advanced knowledge in the field why don't you share yours. For example, do you mean to say that they teach how to make WMD's in one's kitchen in the CBR course?

Despite your protests -- given this is a subject about which you know nothing -- it can be and has been done.
Click to expand...

Well, thank goodness nobody wants to do the US harm since all it takes is a kitchen to make weapons grade nerve gas in a form for effective delivery.

Makes one wonder why a terrorist would rather try to make an underwear bomb when it's so easy to make nerve gas as an efficient weapon.
 
I've already cited an official report, drafted with the input of real experts in the field, that completely contradicts your position.
Click to expand...
Riiiight -- from the Internet. So it must be the whole thing, including all classified parts, no?:rolleyes:


Aside from another attempt by you at diversion, what does my background have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
It tells us if you know enough to know how little you know.

Since you are claiming to have advanced knowledge in the field why don't you share yours. For example, do you mean to say that they teach how to make WMD's in one's kitchen in the CBR course?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, they do.

And among the projects I had after I retired was work with the Chemical Center which involved the Joint Readiness Training Center, where the US Army maintains a terrorist group that, among other thing, uses chemical weapons against units training there. Under the rules of engagement, we have to have a real, approved method of making our agents, as well as locating local sources of supply for the ingredients.

It is shockingly easy to make nerve gas.
 
JustinJ,

Don't you understand and appreciate that freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our fundamental rights are merely "political rights". If that is true, then politicians-- and the judges they appoint -- can abridge, alter or even eliminate them and the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been reduced to just rotting sheets of antique paper, the quaint relics of a dead dream.

A biased politician or judge that is ideologically driven by prejudice and ignorance is one of the vilest and most dangerous of despots.
 
Absolutely right, Yokel

And all the specious arguments in the world don't change that -- "The Constitution is a liiiiiving document." "You don't need a gun like that!" "If you let people have guns, you have to let them have Weapons of Mass Destruction."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top